September 28, 2007

It wasn't too long ago when any musician that allowed their music to be featured in a commercial was branded as a sell out. For many, the idea of including a single in a commercial meant certain death. However, over the past 5 years or so, that thought process has completely evaporated.

With the rise of music downloads, the iPod, and satellite radio, bands aren't just facing a battle on Friday nights in the High School Gym anymore. Everyday is a battle to get your music heard and garner enough popularity that warrants main stream radio play. What better way to get your name out there than hitching your bands new single to a hot consumer item... like an iPod.

The release of the next gen iPod's has unearthed a new artist that is getting some major attention online. Fiest's "1-2-3-4" is the song featured in the commercial. Here are some stats for Feist's, a solo artist from Ontario, Canada:

Although this is her second US release, I (for one) had never heard of her prior to the iPod commercial. After finding the song a bit catchy, I searched for it online and found multiple sites dedicated to informing consumers of songs featured in commercials. I found it here (love the name of this blog), but a simple search can lead you to any song featured in a commercial... like the Old Navy commercial or the Target Commercials.

After speaking with a few musician friends of mine, the change in perception is incredible. Now, they are constantly asking if there is an online video shoot we are doing that could potentially feature their music. If the video hits it big, so too will their song.

August 23, 2007

A few weeks ago, I posted on the premier episode of ABC's new show i-Caught. During the show, several videos were featured, including the incredible "Battle at Kruger" video in which a baby water buffalo escapes the jaws of several lions and crocodiles. At the time of the premier episode, the video had 7,861,609 views. Today, that number has doubled to 15,018,379 and CLIMBING! (Content can be viral more than once!)

Consider that the video was launched on YouTube 3 months ago and that ABC's i-Caught premiered the video 16 days ago, that's pretty impressive. Clearly, there is a way to bridge traditional and social media together to extend the life of your campaign. There is no question that as a result of i-Caught, the Battle of Kruger video was launched into another stratosphere in the world of online video. My guess is the same success was had by the other featured videos as well (but I wasn't able to move fast enough to capture all of the stats.)

There is no question that launching your content on social media platforms should be the first step moving forward. If you've done your job effectively, it won't be long before that content makes it's way into the traditional media (TV, Radio, Magazines, Newspapers). If you've missed the mark, you're investment was probably minimal compared to traditional advertising, PR and marketing efforts so you can afford to take another chance.

And for those of you who think that corporate content won't transcend to the traditional level... keep watching i-Caught to see just how wrong you are.

August 07, 2007

As I type this, I am watching ABC's premier episode of i-Caught, a television show dedicated to telling the back story of some of our favorite viral videos. So far, they have featured this incredible video called Battle at Kruger, the famous Thriller wedding dance and the other side of the viral phenomenon - the embarrassing disaster videos that have drastically ruined the lives of everyday people like this.

I love this show. Instead of just trying to hijack the content currently viewed as popular online, they are taking the time to look into the back story of each video. I enjoyed listening the the couple who danced to Thriller talk about how the video has affected their lives. On the flip side, seeing the pain the wrong video can cause is essential and compelling.

This shows recognizes the power of Social Media and Consumer Generated Content (or whatever we are calling it this week) and effectively expands on the stories that people clearly care about based on the YouTube views. They specifically detail how these videos came to live online and what caused the overwhelming success (metacafe, etc.). Essentially, this show has the ability to introduce social media to an entirely new audience. If it takes off, we may see the number of blogs and vlogs climb from what ABC stated during the show is currently 93 million.

The big question is, will ABC take the extra footage and make it available online for those who may have missed tonight's episode? If I visit YouTube tomorrow and visit the "Battle of Kruger" video, will I see a branded clip from tonight's episode? I hope so! What better way to promote the show then post a response video to each of the existing videos they just exposed to a whole new audience? I am sure each person featured would approve a response video from ABC.

At the time of this post (10:42PM ET) there are currently 7,861,609 views for the Battle of Kruger. Let's see what that number is tomorrow and the next day.

On a side note, ABC is also using i-Caught to discuss how Myspace and social media are helping people solve crime. People are actually putting photos of suspects online in an effort to catch murderers and thief's. They asked the question, "Is this helping or hurting the case?" Good question... thoughts?

July 09, 2007

Probably not, but someone asked me recently what will come of YouTube with the increased competition in online video. It seems that more and more frequently, my favorite channels on YouTube are driving me off the video behemoth to a smaller niche video site, so when this question came about, I actually paused and thought about it for awhile.

Video has been, and will continue to be, the "IT" conversation for marketers. However, loading up mass amounts of content to the video giant seems a bit contradictory to what many people are saying. "Reach Your Customers"...."Deliver content to those who care about your content"...."Speak to your customers."

Is YouTube just becoming an online CBS, NBC and FOX? Or is it more of a DirectTV.... too many channels with nothing good on? Will sites like Funny Or Die start a trend in aggregating similar content into multiple sites? Maybe one day there will be FunnyTube and LoveTube (I think we need another name for that)...or DramaTube, SoapTube and BETube.

I'm just rambling now...but then again, isn't that what blogs are for? Keep shining, Keep smiling...knowing you can always count on me (10 points to the first person who comments on the reference)

June 04, 2007

Last night's MTV Movie Awards was just another glimpse of how MTV has completely turned to Consumer Generated Media to help boost ratings. After last years Music Awards where one "lucky" winner got to sing with Justin Timberlake, last nights Movie Awards showcased User Submitted Movie Spoofs, Vote on Lauren's outfit (from Laguna Beach Fame), and a few other features that received prominent exposure during the show.

Over the last few weeks (sorry for not posting during that time) we have been working diligently on producing some forthcoming videos for a new social media product (stay tuned) and also created one of the aforementioned video spoofs for the MTV Contest. Unfortunately, we did not win a finalist spot and didn't attend the show.

The interesting thing about this contest was that some of these films looked like they spent a pretty penny on execution, and I am not the only one who thought so. People were buzzing about how professional these spoofs looked and that they didn't really encapsulate Consumer Generated Media. Sure, we are a Social Media Marketing and Advertising agency and we submitted our own spoof, but we shot ours for less than $200 in an effort to not discourage actual consumers from participating. Who wants to go up against a Juggernaut that spent $20k on a movie spoof?

Anyway, MTV made it a point during the show last night to mention how much was spent on each spoof. One of the finalists, a spoof on 300, featured a cast of 30-50 and was shot inside an airplane. According to MTV, the person who submitted the film spent $600. Is it possible? absolutely. Probable? Not likely. However, if you are passionate and know the right people, anything can be done for $600.

The question is, does the involvement of professionals in CGM contests defeat the purpose? I don't necessarily think it does, but should advertisers and marketers tone down their talent to blend in, or use the full scale of their arsenal to attract eyeballs?

To date, there has been some terrific viral videos for Sneaux Shoes and Ray Ban that have shown extreme talent, but not appeared over produced. Maybe the appropriate question is, should professionals looking to submit video focus more on execution and script then visual effects? Based on the success of YouTube, it would be hard to say otherwise. After all, if a 16 year old girl talking to a camera can attract 10 million viewers, maybe content is King again...or there are more dirty old men out there than anyone ever imagined.

February 14, 2007

Over the past several months, I've become increasingly fascinated with online video. Of course, I predict that we are only in the infancy of what is to come in the world of On Demand video, and the pending cross integration with traditional broadcasting methods and mobile will truly be the defining moment. I am looking forward to the days of having a central command unit of sorts, in my home that controls all of my gadgets and syncs everything together.

With each passing day, I become more entrenched in YouTube and Revver (and I am looking forward to Veoh) but I often find myself thinking about where the industry will turn. Right now, I am a big fan of abbegirl and joeyanddavid. They put together some great stuff and really encapsulate what the space is capable of now. But what happens to these folks 3 years from now?

Some questions to consider:

1) As regular people lead regular lives, creating new videos on a weekly basis is a challenge and results in infrequent content. Considering this, how much audience does a personality lose when they take to long to create?

2) Without a consistent compensation or revenue system, how will these YouTubers continue to invest in their craft and keep viewers entertained?

3) With big brands becomeing more and more involved in the space, are we just setting up an additional venue for media giants?

4) Will the existing community embrace big brands based on their content and stop focusing on trying to prove that the content is not legit because it wasn't created by an attractive teenager in their parents living room?

5) Could the methods of advertising agencies change to focus beyond the thirty second spot and start producing shorts to replace the way commercials are delivered today?

These are just 5 of the laundry list of questions I am currently thinking about. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on these and plan to provide my own answers in the days to come. What's next is a big question, but one we should all be thinking about.

January 15, 2007

I just got finished watching the season premier of 24. I've followed the show for years and always enjoy the 4 hour premier over two nights. It's a great way to hook fans into the story line quickly. At the conclusion of tonights episode, Fox informed me that by texting "24" to "Jack," I would be able to see scenes from the next episode. Welcome to the third screen!

For the past year or so, FX has been leading the way in driving traffic to the website by enticing viewers to catch the next 4 minutes of episodes for "Rescue Me," "The Shield," and now "Dirt." A revolution is happening here people and another place to realize this is by looking out for Cisco's new commercial. Cisco has done a great job of creating "The Human Network" and their new campaign is definitely reaching their target audience. Anyway, back to my point...

It's only a matter of time before the cell phone becomes part of the "On Demand" environment. Fox's foray into this type of distribution only solidifies the fact that within the next year or two, the cell phone as we know it will completely change. Sure, I can download stuff from Verizon now and watch old TV. We can download stuff to phones and pull them up for later viewing, but there is still so much more possibility in terms of distributing content.

With Fox really being the first to break the ice, I'll be interested to see who jumps in next. How long until bluetooth technology kicks in and McDonald's start sending you coupons or specials as soon as you pull up to the drive through window? Why not offer people the ability to text "BK" to The King as part of a contest for a free burger. If you're driving in for lunch anyway, wouldn't you try it? Of course, we need to have a discussion with the cell phone carriers and convince them to stop charging people for every text!

Anyway, I could go on for hours and take this topic into several different directions, but I better stop now.